Poker Forum by Poker is Rigged

What's everyone's take on this craziness?

I personally don't take any offense to his high profile welcome in Libya. The guy is clearly innocent and I think the whole trial was a complete farse. What's worse is that now it has been alleged that there was a secret economic deal made for his release. Obviously there's no way this is true but the media are reporting it as if it is truth and the highly gullible British public will love to turn on the government.

You say he was "clearly innocent", despite him being proven guilty in a court of law. That's quite a claim, where is your proof?

I couldn't give a toss if he's given a heros welcome or not, he's going to be dead within 3months either way. All it's done is highlight a pretty disgusting mindset in yet another backward-thinking country. I take greater offense in Obama thinking he can tell us how to run our courts.

It's just more boring BS which only distracts the great general public from the real stuff.. you know, like iranian elections? Anyone remember those? Nah... there was more important news like Peter and jordon braking up, right?

I think that's the question you should be asking the courts that convicted the man.

(But yeah, he's not "clearly" innocent, that was an exaggeration. It's just doubtful imo when you hear how they came to the verdict.)

I'm extremely glad that the Scottish authorities didn't cave in to Clinton or Obama who were pushing them to keep Magrahi locked up. Obviously the Libyan people truly believe he was innocent, they aren't in anyway welcoming him home as a hero who attacked the west - they are just overwhelmed that an innocent man has been released.

The American families are absolutely furious about his release whilst the British ones are furious that they won't get the appeal and another investigation. From what I hear, a lot of the British victim's family members don't believe the evidence is profound enough to convict this man of being guilty.

With being in the military and siding with counter terrorism, I think it's a good move to release an innocent man. The media in the states gave me the first impression he was guilty. If he doesn't even have ties to t.organizations. Then it's ok in my book I don't have to deal with him, and he's deathly ill. If scotland feels they have enough intelligence to believe he's safe to return to freedom. It has to be respected given his actual criminal record.

About clinton, who I respect, he should keep his nose out of it..

"That year the government of Sudan offered to arrest bin Laden, then living in its capital city, and turn him over to American authorities, the Washington Post and several British newspapers reported last week. This prompts two questions: If President Clinton could have taken bin Laden into custody, prosecuted him for murderous attacks on Americans in Somalia and spared the lives of thousands who were killed or wounded in future attacks, why didn't he do it? And can we believe the Sudanese government is telling us the truth about its plan to arrest bin Laden?
I really dont want to go off topic, it just frustrates me..

He wasn't released because he was innocent (which he may be I have no idea) but because he is dying. This seems to me to be slightly mental as, assuming he was a terrorist, a dying terrorist would seem to me to be just as much of a threat as a healthy one. Unless he is extremely frail in which case he probably wouldn't be flying to Lybia.

Whatever the truth you have to give some credit to the Scottish Justice secretary for being able to ignore the opinions of some very important people and make what he believed to be the correct decision.

Lets hope so.

Surely has to be more to this than just realeasing him on compassionate grounds. He has only served 8 odd years for the murder of 200 + people.

__________________
[QUOTE=hithenose_home;23283]
Everyone who has responded to this is a MORON except Gerrard.[/QUOTE]
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]